Talk:นักการพนัน
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Gamren in topic RFV discussion: June 2016–July 2017
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
The correct term is นักพนัน. --YURi (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @YURi: Thai entered to mean gambler. Entered by User:Alifshinobi, who declares himself to be th-3. นักการพนัน found by Google translate. Apparently found at google books:นักการพนัน in space-free blocks of text. Are you sure the term does not meet WT:ATTEST? We are not here concerned with "correctness", merely with attestation in actual use.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Put differently, how do you explain all those hits at google books:นักการพนัน? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here's one example from Google books I was sort of comfortable with (can't guarantee a good translation):
- Lua error in Module:th at line 244: The word นักการพนัน was not romanised successfully. Please supply its syllabified phonetic respelling, enclosed by {} and placed after the word (see Template:th-usex).
- source--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- นักการพนัน is used among Thai-speaking people. นักพนัน and นักการพนัน are both "correct", although the former is used more often than the latter. Just because one form is used more often than other forms, doesn't mean that the other ones are not used at all and therefore are "incorrect". --A.S. (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Alifshinobi If you can find citations satisfying WT:CFI, please add them to the page. Otherwise, it is liable to deletion. I also deleted the word above; but again, if you can find cites, do feel free to readd it. If you are unsure what constitutes sufficient attestation, there are many whom you can ask.__Gamren (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh well. Down the drain it goes. RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Alifshinobi If you can find citations satisfying WT:CFI, please add them to the page. Otherwise, it is liable to deletion. I also deleted the word above; but again, if you can find cites, do feel free to readd it. If you are unsure what constitutes sufficient attestation, there are many whom you can ask.__Gamren (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)